Re: Nits in current drafts

[Ben Harris <bjh21%bjh21.me.uk@localhost>]

In article <E1D3vOT-0003P8-00%medusa01.cs.auckland.ac.nz@localhost> you write:
>Ben Harris <bjh21%bjh21.me.uk@localhost> writes:
>>Imagine I've got an RSA-based authentication system, with its own certificate
>>format, so I define a wibble-rsa%bjh21.me.uk@localhost public-key format. It happens
>>that my authentication system uses its keys with RSASSA-PSS internally.
>>
>>1: Am I required to use the "ssh-rsa" signature format?
>
>No, you can use whatever you want, although unless you use ssh-rsa you're not
>going to be able to talk to anything else (obviously, that's what's implied
>by the xyz%foo.com@localhost format).

In that case, I don't think I have any objection to your proposal, though I
still think a better approach at this stage would be to simply remove all
mention of OpenPGP keys and leave their handling to be defined properly in a
separate RFC.

-- 
Ben Harris